Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

As Girls Become Women, Sports Pay Dividends

Almost four decades after the federal education law called Title IX opened the door for girls to participate in high school and college athletics, a crucial question has remained unanswered: Do sports make a long-term difference in a woman’s life?

A large body of research shows that sports are associated with all sorts of benefits, like lower teenage pregnancy rates, better grades and higher self-esteem. But until now, no one has determined whether those improvements are a direct result of athletic participation. It may be that the type of girl who is attracted to sports already has the social, personal and physical qualities — like ambition, strength and supportive parents — that will help her succeed in life.

Now, separate studies from two economists offer some answers, providing the strongest evidence yet that team sports can result in lifelong improvements to educational, work and health prospects. At a time when the first lady, Michelle Obama, has begun a nationwide campaign to improve schoolchildren’s health, the lessons from Title IX show that school-based fitness efforts can have lasting effects.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 required schools and colleges receiving federal money to provide the same opportunities for girls as they did for boys. Relatively few students, male or female, participate in intercollegiate sports. But the effects in high school were remarkable. Just six years after the enactment of Title IX, the percentage of girls playing team sports had jumped sixfold, to 25 percent from about 4 percent.

Most research on Title IX has looked at national trends in girls’ sports. Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, has taken it a step further, focusing on state-by-state variations.

(Click to enlarge.)

“I looked to see what it means to add sports to girls’ lives,” she said. “How does it change things for them?”

States with large boys’ sports programs had to make bigger changes to achieve parity than states with smaller programs. Looking at the state-by-state statistics allowed Dr. Stevenson to narrow her focus, comparing differences in sports participation with differences in women’s educational and work achievement.

So her study untangles the effects of sports participation from other confounding factors — school size, climate, social and personal differences among athletes — and comes far closer to determining a cause and effect relationship between high school sports participation and achievement later in life.

Using a complex analysis, Dr. Stevenson showed that increasing girls’ sports participation had a direct effect on women’s education and employment. She found that the changes set in motion by Title IX explained about 20 percent of the increase in women’s education and about 40 percent of the rise in employment for 25-to-34-year-old women.

“It’s not just that the people who are going to do well in life play sports, but that sports help people do better in life,” she said, adding, “While I only show this for girls, it’s reasonable to believe it’s true for boys as well.”

Another question is whether Title IX has made a difference in women’s long-term health. In a carefully conducted study, Robert Kaestner, an economics professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, compared rates of obesity and physical activity of women who had been in high school in the 1970s — as Title IX was taking effect — with similar women from earlier years. Controlling the results for other influences, like age and changing diets, Dr. Kaestner was able to tease out the effects Title IX had on women’s health.

He found that the increase in girls’ athletic participation caused by Title IX was associated with a 7 percent lower risk of obesity 20 to 25 years later, when women were in their late 30s and early 40s. His article was published this month in the journal Evaluation Review.

Dr. Kaestner notes that while a 7 percent decline in obesity is modest, no other public health program can claim similar success. And other studies have shown that even a small drop in weight can lower risk for diabetes and other health problems.

There is still room for improvement. Today about 1 in 3 high school girls play sports, compared with about half of all boys. And participation varies widely by state, according to Dr. Stevenson’s research. Southern states like Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee still have big gender gaps, while Northern states like Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont are closer to parity.

“While we have more girls than ever before, we still have far more boys playing sports than girls,” said Nicole M. LaVoi, associate director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota. “The research clearly states that when anybody, boys and girls, are physically active, they can reap developmental and health benefits. But we haven’t reached equality yet.”

I love this post, and reading about how far women’s sports have come since 1970.

I graduated from high school & college before Title IX existed–which means women’s sports teams didn’t exist–except for the one Exhibition Game my Girl’s All-Star Basketball team played in 1965.

But, honestly, the fact that this unathletic junior-high girl made the All-Star Girl’s Basketball Team completely changed my attitude about my athletic abilities forever. I never thought I had it in me.

Who me? Couldn’t be.

I may have missed out on the team experience except for that short experience in 1965, but exercise has continued to be a very important part of my life.

The benefits are enormous–but school exercise programs should be expanded beyond team sports.

Dr. John Ratey documents enormous chenges in improvements in academic test scores and self-esteem in those schools that adopt more inclusive serious and challenging exercise programs that reach beyond team sports.

Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, by John Ratey.

As for that 1965 pre-Title IX Girls Basketball Team–you can find a picture here:

Fascinating–now, if it would only result in schoolkids getting time for gym and recess in addition to test prep (and I say this as someone who hated gym with a passion due to asthma and open changing rooms).

That’s great for girls who are athletic. But the girls who are clumsy and last picked for teams are the girls who need the benefits most
How does this help them? This makes me feel that we haven’t come any further. We’re just including athletic popular girls in the mainstream
I understand this is a study of Title 1X and that further studies will be done.
I also understand that there’s a backlash against non-competitiveness. Parents complain that their child deserves to be given medals etc and inclusiveness is wrong. Yet those kids will probably go onto be successful simply because they have the physical tools.
It has to be made so that all kids–boys and girls want to be involved in some sports

It is nice that women can play sports if they wish, but think it is sad that sports have taken the place of more feminine forms of physical self expression, like ballet, which we all used to love so so much.

FROM TPP — I don’t know that sports have replaced dance pursuits — I’ve never seen any data on girls’ participation in dance.

Thank you for this article. I am so happy to see some definitive proof of the benefit of sports for girls. I hope this means that the controversy over the need for Title IX can finally begin to fade.

A dangerous and little known erosion of Title IX took place under the Bush US DOE: in 2005, the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education declared that schools could be compliant with Title IX simply by surveying students and showing that there was less interest in sports among girls than among boys This decision came after the following very strong statement from the Federal Second Circuit in 2004 regarding a lawsuit (McCormick and Geldwert v. The School District of Mamaroneck and the School District of Pelham) on this issue:

“To assert that Title IX permits institutions to provide fewer athletics participation opportunities for women than for men, based upon the premise that women are less interested in sports than are men, is (among other things) to ignore the fact that Title IX was enacted in order to remedy discrimination that results from stereotyped notions of women’s interests and abilities. Interest and ability rarely develop in a vacuum; they evolve as a function of opportunity and experience. To allow a numbers-based lack-of-interest (sic) defense to become the instrument of further discrimination against the underrepresented gender would pervert the remedial purpose of Title IX.”

It would be wonderful if you/the Times would report on this, especially in light of these new research findings.

Somewhat swept under the rug here is that participation is sports at the highest level is often unhealthy- for example cutting weight in wrestling, or the unbelievably high incidence of knee injuries in female college athletes. This used to be a problem at only the highest levels, really starting at Division 1, but with the increased intensity of training at younger and younger ages, I’m seeing a lot of very serious injuries at young ages. We need to get rid of the concept of all sports and athletic activity being healthy. Participation is important, but overtraining is a very serious and often ignored risk.

This is so encouraging! It would be interesting to see what the income disparity is between women who play sports and those who do not.

As a side note to Former New Yorker. Stop being a bitter curmudgeon. Sports are NOT just for beautiful popular women. I am not beautiful and DEFINITELY wasn’t popular in high school, and I am eternally grateful for my opportunity to play. If you are bad at sports, find one you like and practice it and note how you improve. That’s how people get good at things — PRACTICE — and no, adulthood is not too late to start. Maybe you’ll make some friends and lose that chip on your shoulder in the process.

1) Are you aware of “third variable problems?” They are what you have when two variables statistically related are explained by another one. To a greater extent than boys, girls playing high school sports are very likely to be of higher social classes, which independently have lower rates of obesity, pregnancy, and other risk factors.

2) Causality is very, very hard to conclusively determine, in direction as well as existence. For example, as hinted above, girls who have already decided not to become obese, get pregnant, or slack off in school may choose team sports as a “clean” activity.

3) Baseball writer Bill James, a political liberal, called the idea that girls like playing sports as much as boys do “frankly preposterous.” He’s no super-guru, but certainly informed. We may not want that to be the reality, but it probably is, so perhaps 100% equal funding makes no more sense than, say, if such were offered for the drama club (way over 50% female at almost any school).

Very interesting article. I wonder if anyone has done a study that correlates athletic participation in high school with economic/educational success later in life (perhaps measured by graduate level degrees, or high level jobs) in girls. That could yield interesting results.

Let me suggest the impact would be even greater if finally here in the 21st century we had at least new team sport so designed that it would be realistic for both women and men to compete together as equals on the playing field as women must do in the “real” world beyond sports.

Getting the mothers of girls to encourage them into physical activities (dance, exersise or sports) is probably one of the greatest obstacals for young girls from my experience. This is a great article.

Boys and girls, men and women are different. I always and continue to believe this to be the case. hense, — the metaphor Mars and Venus.

From a biological perspective, this can be discerned in babies. But, since the feminist movement, though a difference still exists, many genetic and constitutional explanatios have disappeared.

I thought as a child. that the male was superior in many crucial ways when compared to females — not that in many other instances, the antithesis was true. But, I thought males were intended to dominate on this planet.

Two examples: in the 50’s and 60’s men were far more confident automobile drivers and far more likely to cause accidents. Insurance company data agreed.

I never rode in a car with a man who ever avoided highways. Yet, more than a small number of women drivers said, ‘Yes, I drive — but never on highways or turnpikes,’

A man would be reluctant to even admit such ‘unmanly’ behavior — even if it were the case. Yet women freely voiced it with a lack of shame.

Then in high school and college, women hardly made comments in classes. I took an introductory education course with two men (including me) and about 30 women.
During the course of the term, more than half of all questions responded to or verbal offerings emenated from the other guy and me. Huh?

I saw this as an indication of cultural norms — not genetics or other biological factors. I once said to a male friend, ‘It is our society which deprives women of being equal to their male counterparts.’ I still hold on to my hypothesis originally verbalized in 1963.

Now, sports. We have all heard the insult, “He throws (a ball) like a girl.” Post feminism… Billy Jean King followed by many other superior tennis woman greats and many other female athletes have demonstated how females had held back from being able to demonstrate their full potential. But, men are (on average) stronger than women.

Note that female tennis players have to win only two out of three sets; males three out of five. This disparity is analogous to many other “female adjustments” made in sporting endeavors.

But, intellecually, the supossed inferiority of women to men has been shown to be an almost total canard — even in math. In college in the 60’s most women were education majors. I knew of no women who were pre-med or intended to go to law school.

In fact, then the overwhelming majority of university students were men; now the reverse is true: about 55% to 45% in favor of women.

Cultural differences are often assumed to be biological. Though I believe that race is just a human made construct — not real — most of us look at differences found between race (and even ethnic, religious… groups) as being inherant. We sometimes think it (consciously or unconsciously) but fear to voice it.

As one of the greatest behavioral psychologists, John Watson said early in the 20th century: ‘Gice me any baby and with appropriate manipulation, I can make him a doctor, lawyer or Indian chief.’

To be PC about Watson’s observation, let’s change “Indian chief” to “Native American leader.”

I don’t see an explanation about WHY sports seem to give participants advantages later in life. Is it the physical activity itself, or is it participating in a group activity focused on a common goal (which, depending on one’s career choice, is a very important skill). If the later, then would one expect to see similar advantages accruing to students who participate in student government, theatre, dance or the school paper? Has anyone ever studied these kinds of groups?

Okay, Tara, how do I get my 11- and 8-year-old daughters interested in playing sports? They did soccer a bit when they were younger, but it didn’t click. My older one plays softball for 8 weeks in the spring, and my younger one will start playing softball this year. They also do swim team for 6 weeks in the summer. But they don’t have any year-round involvement or interest in team sports. I firmly believe–and this study backs up–that girls benefit so much from having participated in team sports, and I know I missed out because I DIDN’T participate in them as a child. What’s the secret to getting girls interested in playing sports when it just flat doesn’t appeal to them?

Hooray for Title IX! We need more research to help convince those in decision making positions how important it is to get girls engaged in sport – at any level of competition. Having said that, with the rise of private club sports, much of the data will not come from schools or be the direct result of Title IX (which does not govern private sport). Also, we are closer to equity in terms of participation numbers, but completely out of balance when we consider coaching data – more than 50% of girls high school teams in CA are coached by men (we would think with more female athletes we’d eventually have more female coaches – this has not occurred).
Lastly, a previous comment is right on. The New York Times could easily devote more space to the coverage of women’s sports – the media has a significant impact on what girls choose to do, how they feel about their bodies, what sports they do choose, etc. Currently, American newspaper coverage of women in sports is less than 10%. The Olympics tend to be an exception – women receive higher than their 10% coverage average, but will still fall shy of the amount their male counterparts receive.

As parents of a teen (who was on her small public high school’s varsity tennis but otherwise not athletic), my husband and I are constantly amazed at the injuries suffered by young athletes. So many of these kids push themselves and are pushed (by parents and coaches) to the point that they have injuries that will only get worse as they get older. Kids who have multiple knee, shoulder, or ankle surgeries will be middle-aged adults with arthritis. Often these kids push themselves in an often elusive quest for athletic scholarships. I don’t believe it is worth it. Like so much in our culture, sports can are good only in moderation.

FROM TPP — Studies show that girls are injured at a far lower rate than boys. Interesting that we fret so much about girls’ injuries yet boys have been getting injured, sometimes seriously, for decades and we rarely wring our collective hands about that.

We have all been informed lately that girls make up the majority of college students and that they do better in school than boys do. Perhaps our emphasis on involving girls in sports has worked along with our emphasis on female achievement to make us very like the Spartans. The following chart shows why the Spartan women were higher achievers than the Athenian women.

WHY SPARTAN WOMEN WERE MORE DOMINANT IN SOCIETY THAN THEIR ATHENIAN SISTERS

1. Girls were given a good education in both the arts and athletics.
2. Women were encouraged to develop their intellect.
3. Women owned more than a third of the land.
4. There was less difference in age between husbands and wives, and girls in Sparta married at a later age than their sisters in Athens.
5. Husbands spent most of their time with other men in the military barracks; since the men were rarely home, the women were free to take charge of almost everything outside of the army.
6. Mothers reared their sons until age 7 and then society took over. Fathers played little or no role in child care.//www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20in%20sparta.htm

Now, in Spartan society the men played a very small role in raising their children, but the Spartan women played a very small role as well. Today, a high achieving woman leaves her children at home with an au pair or places them in child care. The result is that the children today are not as attached to their mothers as in the past. Perhaps our emphasis upon athletics for women has made our society more egalitarian and Spartan like.

Does the government tell each public library that the sum of all the women’s salaries working at the library should equal the sum of all the men’s salaries? Or that the sum of all female professors should total the sum of all male professors at each university. No, because that would be ridiculous. Then why is it that all women’s sports funds have to match all men’s sports funds? The data shows that men are more interested in sports than women. Why should a male athlete be denied funds and resources in an effort to convince girls to play sports. It is far more difficult for a guy to receive a scholarship in any sport other than football than an equally competitive girl. Women should absolutely be given equal opportunity, but the way that title IX is being carried out is not equal opportunity.

Using a complex analysis, Dr. Stevenson showed that increasing girls’ sports participation had a direct effect on women’s education and employment. She found that the changes set in motion by Title IX explained about 20 percent of the increase in women’s education and about 40 percent of the rise in employment for 25-to-34-year-old women.

This is bonkers. The underlying process was the emancipation of women in all areas of endeavor, including sports, but more importantly in employment law and most importantly in changing cultural perceptions of the role of women in education and employment. Sports did not “explain” (or cause, which is the implication) the increase in education (except at the margins, where a girl who liked sports might go to college because of the opportunity to play the sport she didn’t have before) and particularly in employment, where the reasons are multiple, dealing with economic opportunity, the need for income, marital prospects, etc.

What is being measured is covariation, not explanation.
That is, states where women’s programs in sports were developed earlier are more likely to be supportive of education and meaningful employment for women. Thus one is picking up differences in social attitudes (towards
tolerance–without having seen any data I would guess that the Northeast and Upper Midwest is the most supportive and the South the least). The state-by-state argument run through some type of counterfactual statistical procedure
is an erroneous interpretation as it cannot distinguish between an underlying process creating multiple instantiations which are all correlated.

If the author truely wishes to support her hypothesis in a manner in which statisticians (as opposed to econometricians) are likely to accept , she could actually
go to school districts that were demographically similar and geographically close but which instituted sports programs for women at different
times. That is, district A and B would be observed in
three different time periods. Period 1 would be before either district instituted women’s sports programs. The education rates would be similar. Then district A institutes a sports
program and B does not (period 2). Education and employment would presumably go up (if the author’s hypothesis is supported) for those girls directly affected. Period 3 would be after sports were introduced at both schools. It would be expected education and employment would once again become similar.

While this would be a more persuasive test, note it still runs into potential problems of endogeneity (that is, the decision by district A to institute a sports program is a result of more culturally tolerant attitudes towards women breaking out of societally sponsered norms). Ideally, the decision to institute a sports program would be imposed by a central authority at separate times (for example, the western part of a state might have one time and the eastern part another).

To #6, who said, “It is nice that women can play sports if they wish, but think it is sad that sports have taken the place of more feminine forms of physical self expression, like ballet, which we all used to love so so much.”

There is nothing inherently feminine or female about ballet. Surely you’re aware of the significant presence of men in professional ballet companies?

I took ballet in high school, in lieu of gym class; it was taught by a man, and we had a variety of male students in our classes for a variety of reasons. And we had female students in our classes who did both ballet and other athletics. And we had female students who did not take ballet because they had zero interest in it, and would not have had any interest in it even if other athletic options weren’t available to them.

There is nothing inherently masculine about sports, either. A female hockey player is not inherently less feminine because she plays hockey. A female track runner is not inherently less feminine because she runs track. What exactly do we mean by “feminine” here?

I think it’s great that more girls are playing sports. When I was growing up, it was considered strange for girls to do this once they reached puberty. Looking back, I don’t think that was a good thing.

Having said that, I am baffled by post #5:

>> Why doesn’t the NYT give equal inches of text and photos to female sports as to male ones?

As a man who doesn’t spend much time reading the sports pages, I really wouldn’t care either way. It should be obvious that the New York Times will devote its coverage to meet the demands of its readers, and at this time there happens to be less of a demand for coverage of women’s sports. The paper does not exclude women from its writing and editorial staffs, nor does it cater exclusively to the interests of male readers.